Friday, November 30, 2012

From reports and blogs, some excerpts of personalities involved in the PI Bala SD I and II affair.

Lawyer M. Puravalen, who was Abdul Razak Baginda's first lawyer in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case two years ago, has refused to divulge to the police today the details of "privileged information" shared with him by his client.

The 54-year-old lawyer said such information when made in full confidentiality was a fundamental and sacrosanct aspect of the lawyer-client relationship. - As posted on the Malaysian Bar website.

That was 3 years ago, 18 July 2008.

Fast forward, 14 August 2012 a press statement by Sivarasa Rasiah, PKR Member of Parliament for Subang,

RPK was invited to that meeting in Puravalen’s house the day before the 3nd July press conference to be given a pre-view of Bala’s 1st SD to put up on his blog and write about it which he did.

I just cannot reconcile the above two quotes. For anyone who understands what Bala SD I was all about, it raises questions.

For example, how could Mr Puravalen house a meeting related to a statutory declaration which had (at the time) significant references to his former client and not risk breaching "privileged information" of the lawyer-client relationship?

Was it judicious for Mr Puravalen to be involved, in any way, with a statutory declaration that could, one way or another, be seen as damaging to his former client?

Anyway back the Deepak fellow.

Bear in mind, of course, we do not know to whom or what the Deepak fellow is referring to, as he is riddling us this and that.

These are for those are frothing at the mouth and think whom and what the fellow is referring to.

He also rubbished the website’s claims that he had played a key role in silencing private eye P. Balasubramaniam in the 2006 sex-murder scandal of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu; and in Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s ongoing sodomy trial.(sic)

Now,

“It was damage control to stop the problem... I was tasked - don’t ask who tasked me - with getting him to agree to sign another SD, not because of the (first) SD itself but because of the repercussions that will happen the next day if that (first) SD was not reversed,” he said.

I see a distinct stratagem here and the personalities involved in the PI Bala saga are interconnected.

Support first and later, in the familiar words for Raja Petra Kamarudin, whack.

And whack first and later, support.

RPK prints all over.

"I would have better use for the millions of ringgit that I would have needed to do that, which I don’t have in the first place" - Sivarasa Rasiah

Mull on that for now.

By the way, what do you make of the following?

Because there was a concentrated effort. There were two factions here - you had Bala sitting down with (opposition leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) and you had another faction that didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power.

They were determined, although they were from different sides, to work together to achieve this and both had the power to do so. Hence the absolute concern.

Musa, who was the police chief, said he personally briefed Abdullah on the allegations surrounding then deputy prime minister Najib Abdul Razak in the scandal.

"I briefed him. I said those involved were Abdul Razak Baginda and two police officers (who have since been convicted for the murder).

"Then, he asked if Najib was involved and I said 'no'. The investigations showed that Najib was not involved. That was what I told him," Musa said in an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini last week.

He also described claims that Najib's wife Rosmah Mansor was present at the murder site as untrue.

"There was no involvement, even the military was not involved in this. The only ones who did it (the murder) were the two police officers," Musa said.

He added that the briefing was given to Abdullah after police concluded their investigations and decided in early 2007 to charge Abdul Razak and the two police officers with the murder of Altantuya

But, anyone who has an understanding of current Malaysian politics and the present day protest nature of certain segments, will tell you underpining the size of the anti-Lynas protest or any protest is, support of opposition political parties.

Political online social networking being what it is, an indespensible tool for both the ruling and in this case the opposition parties, would had made the anti-Lynas protest to assume seemingly wide support.

The usual suspects and pictures tell the story.

Sitting in,

With the bosses wife,

With the bosses daughter, political rookie under fire going undercover,

Under cover of tight security protection,

The protest was peaceful with The Sun reporting police presence was light, where only about 100 general duty police barricaded the perimeter of the square itself, and there was no light strike force unit (LSF) nor federal reserve units (FRU) in sight.

Peaceful, despite the fact the presence of another usual suspect,

The Malaysia Insider reported Anwar Ibrahim PKR de facto chief proceeded to the makeshift podium — the back of a parked lorry — before launching into a short but fiery speech flaying Barisan Nasional (BN) for allegedly putting their greed above the interests of the people.

Peaceful, fortunately, because there were no hidden hand signals,

in which the protest would have ended up like this,

Therefore, if size were to be the measure of support for anti-Lynas and inspite the endorsement of the opposition and presence of their party heavyweights, then the only conclusion anyone will arrive at is, it's a total embarrasment.

What those who partook in the protest, deliberately or innocently, do not know and the opposition would not want you to know, is that the Malaysian government had invited the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, with a "request to organise an independent expert review of the radiation safety aspects of rare earths processing facility currently under construction in Malaysia, a part of the Advanced Materials Project being developed by the Lynas Corporation Limited."

The IAEA's "Report of the International Review Mission on the Radiation Safety Aspects of a Proposed Rare Earths Processing Facility (the Lynas Project)" and recommendations is here.

It is evidently clear, the government had been and is being most responsible for the safety of everyone first and foremost, in as far as the Lynas is concerned, and in the process derive the economical benefits that the project will generate in due time.

It would not be difficult for parties outside the government to establish any kind of watchdog, NGO if you like, to work with the government to ensure and meet the recommendations of the IAEA.

Yet, interested parties have gone to the courts, and not satisfied, now take it to the streets.

This is what the opposition parties want, with support diminishing by the day, to further their waning political agenda.

Well done, Wong Tack and Green March for gratefully allowing the opposition parties to exploit another issue or non-issue, again.

Well done, for being another embarassment to this country we all love.

Blogger note:

Genuine concerns for human life and safety will alway be welcome. The life and safety of citizens must never be compromised for whatever benefit.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

If readers, especially interested Catholics, had read the article "The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church" part 1, you will understand that the author is articulating President Barack Obama is ignoring the US First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added) for political capital.

It revolves around Health and Human Services rulings of the Obama administration that would be effectively bar the Catholic church in the US to practise, what the Church has long held sinful — abortion via the morning after pill, sterilization and contraceptives and when religious beliefs conflict with government decrees, religion must yield.

Obama, to energize his political base, positioned his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” for the Presidential campaign by government decrees granted to women which ran counter unalienable right to act in accordance with religious beliefs and conscience, overturn the First Amendment, and tramples the nation’s founding principles as announced in the Declaration of Independence.

Recall that important info on Obama winning by a slim margin? Juxtapose to the above, Obama would probably not have been re-elected had it not been for the women votes.

A total of sixteen people were arrested which include 9 contract workers and 6 villagers and are now being remanded in the Kempas police station which is situated just a kilometer away.

Considering CJMY was borne out of "The growing skepticism and distrust among readers have created a demand for impartial and objective news and gave birth to a new form of journalism known as citizen journalism" and that SUARAM failed to mention squatters and 9 others arrested, further questions the honesty of and trust for the "great" defender.

Having been left dumbstruck by the level of and suitably exposed for it's diabolical effort to demonise the government and the prime minister, cannot blame the "great" defender which now has nothing better to do other than to call for "urgent" attention to a scuffle and being dishonest at that.

The Pakatan Rakyat gloats, boasts and makes glowing when the Auditor General reports of Pakatan Rakyat states are positive.

What the PKR deputy president is suggesting may not only be unconstitutional but in essence now not only questions the integrity and credibility, it insults the position of the same Auditor General who gave the Pakatan Rakyat those boasting rights.

From the AG website, Article 106: Powers and Duties of Auditor General
(1) The accounts of the Federation and of the States shall be audited and reported on by the Auditor General.

That's what you get when you choose to elect someone, especially from the PKR who acts like a wannabe mentri besar, has nothing better to do than to make outrageous suggestions.

You wonder why that fellow chose Australia and not Great Britain or the United States.

The guy must be stupid if he does not undertstand and that the Australian government was being gracious when it said, "We're not the election authority for Malaysia".

This apart from the other unsavoury conclusion of the fellow that can be derived from the Sundaily report.

That's what you get when you choose to trust someone who when stupid is as stupid does goes around defending the security of Israel, discriminates homosexuals and doing acrobatics with China dolls among others, has now, nothing better to do.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Reading Datuk Rocky's "So, does the Batu Caves condo pit non-Muslims against Pakatan Rakyat?" taking to task journalists of opposition leaning The Malaysian Insider, inspired me this question - How can journalists and columnists at The Malaysian Insider, in good consience, accept remuneration, if any, from an entity that is known to pervert truth and relies on deception to remain relevant?

Perversion and deception by any other name is dishonest.

It is more deplorable when the sum of perversion and deception, that does not equal honesty, is employed as a measure that only creates suspicion, enmity, distrust, disharmony and all that is evil among the diverse peoples of this great country.

I had written not a bit about The Malaysian Insider and am never surprised when the level it stoops gets lower than the sole of our shoes.

Anyway, browsing through my drafts on the subject matter of journalistic integrity led me to the other opposition leaning online news content provider, Malayiakini.

"Naidu, a Singapore-born ethnic Indian, came to Fiji from the United States to defend Speight against a charge of treason."

(From the Dailymail, George Speight and armed nationalists stormed parliament on May 19, 2000, saying Indo-Fijians were undermining indigenous rights. His extremist nationalist backers, who include some Fijian chiefs, said they wanted ethnic Indians stripped of political power. Speight had pleaded guilty to the treason charge and sentenced to death but was commuted to life imprisonment.)

Whether Mr Navin C. Naidu was and is a bon fide lawyer to defend George Speight was called into question reported Television New Zealand, "Speight lawyer wanted for forgery",

"Naidu's forged degree showed that he had graduated in July 1987, just two months after he enrolled. In a letter to the Fiji Law Society, the head of the university's registry, Jonathan Seddon, says Naidu's degree is not genuine."

More interesting is another TVNZ report a day earlier, that of "Speight lawyer's degree from Jesus", Naidu claimed that his credentials come from Jesus and that he is confident of being admitted to the bar.

Navin C. Naidu was deported to the United States where he appears to be an American Bar Association member but is not currently licensed to practice law in two states where he has lived or in Texas where the Constitutional Sheriffs organization is based, excerpts an article posted in the Denver Post entitled, Constitutional Sheriffs have an Ecclesiastical “lawyer”.

The Denver Post article also states,

"Among his accomplishments, he lists the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Court of Justice and Law Offices. Naidu’s website for that august body states that Believers (with a capital B) can basically operate outside the laws created by men as long as they follow Biblical law."

Among his honorifics - Chief Justice, of the Sultanate of Sulu, Philippines and Kayan Dynasty, Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China which lists an Inauguration - King of Borneo.

Possibly, it is his positions as Chief Judge, Lipan Apache Band, Texas and Little Shell Pembina Band, North Dakota that entitles him to be bestowed "Judge" Navin.

Maybe Judge Navin is too humble, he is also Judge Navin of the Nato Indian Nation (which declares that it is a sovereign nation with its own government, judiciary and police force), as ascribed in an affidavit by James Timothy Turner in his case (page 18) against the President of the United States.

Monday, November 19, 2012

An unpardonable inequity by deceiving their supporters and others gullible enough, into believing their false esprit de corps ala Buku Jingga or Common Framework Policy or whatever, in every aspect of the illogical tripartite.

DAP Chairman, Karpal Singh, noted that PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang had publicly stated on June 3 last year that the Quran mentioned a “welfare state”, not an “Islamic state”. The DAP party stalwart also said it reflected beyond the pale of a doubt that PAS has given up its aim to set up an Islamic state,” and that “PAS has, clearly, opted for a welfare state.”

PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang had said the difference between an Islamic state and a welfare state was merely semantic as both concepts uphold public wellbeing and is quoted as saying, “In fact the term in the Quran is ‘welfare state’ nowhere does it say Islamic state”.

Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, Chairman and Director of the Islamic Renaissance Front, in no uncertain terms writes, "If there is anything unmistakably clear from the recent muktamar or general assembly of the Islamic Party of Malaysia - PAS - it is that despite the acceptance of the concept of tahalluf siyasi or political consensus among the three major components of the opposition front - Pakatan Rakyat - PAS' ambition in establishing an Islamic state and implementing hudud laws is unwavering, if not more resolute".

Over to you, Karpal Singh.

It is still Anwar for PM says Guan Eng, that has been decided by all three parties as it was then, and DAP wants Anwar as PM, Lim insisted today that Anwar remains the DAP’s and PR’s candidate for prime minister, as it is now.

This does not sound like it was agreed by all three parties, Hadi:I’m ready to be PM. Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang said he was ready to lead the country should Pakatan Rakyat (BN) win the next election.

The announcement by Abdul Hadi makes nonsense of anything agreed upon, that Anwar Ibrahim is the Pakatan Rakyat choice for prime minister, in effect the biggest deception of all.

Here are a few headlines in alternative online news media covering the recent visit of IMF managing director, Christine Legarde, reports and her interviews pertaining to the economic situation in Asia in general and Malaysia in particular.

Online Financial news portal, The Edge had "Lagarde optimistic about Asia’s future" in their interview with Madam Legarde, (which for some reason the Google link does not work and is picked up) here, and "M'sia needs broad range of reforms" found here and here.

The IMF had on the same day published "Asia and the Promise of Economic Cooperation" in conjunction with the organisation's managing director's visit to Malaysia, appended here verbatim including all emphasis:

Good evening. Selamat sejahtera! It is a great pleasure to be here. Let me thank the Malaysian Economic Association and the Bank Negara Malaysia for organizing this event. I would especially like to recognize Governor Zeti, who is quite rightly regarded as one of the world’s best central bankers—and one of the longest serving! Let me also recognize Tan Sri Dato’ Mohamed Sheriff, the president of the Malaysia Economics Association.

It is good to be back in Asia. I was just here last month for the IMF Annual Meetings in Tokyo. I keep coming back for one simple reason: the increasing leadership role that Asia plays in the global economy—and in the IMF too.

Just look at how far the region has come. Over the course of three decades, emerging Asia’s share of world GDP jumped from 10 percent to 30 percent, living standards rose sixfold, and an incredible half billion people pulled themselves out of poverty. Over the past decade alone, emerging Asia has grown by more than 7½ percent a year.

More recently, during the dark days of the global financial crisis, it was Asia that kept the flame alive, accounting for about two-thirds of global growth. Clearly, the momentum is here, the dynamism is here, and the future starts here.

Malaysia is big part of this story. This is a country with a rich and ancient history. It has always been a great trading nation where cultures meet and thrive. I see this today as I visit between two important holidays for the different traditions—Deepavali and Awal Muharram. Today, Malaysia is one of Asia’s most dynamic and innovative centers—with eyes fixed firmly on the future.

It is with this future in mind that I would like to talk about three things today:

1. The policy agenda for advanced economies—and the implications for Asia.

2. The virtues and benefits of further economic cooperation within Asia.

3. And the broader importance of international policy cooperation.

1. Policy agenda in advanced economies and implications for Asia

Let me start with the global economy, where momentum continues to slow. We expect global growth of 3.3 percent in 2012 and 3.6 percent in 2013—lower than we thought a few months ago.

The slowdown itself is not the main story. The main story is that the slowdown is spreading to regions that have previously held up well. This is what worries me the most. In this interconnected world, there is really nowhere to hide.

We see this here. Malaysia has held up well so far with growth above 4½ percent, but we are in risky territory. This year, growth in emerging Asia fell to its lowest level since 2008—partly from domestic slowdowns in China and India, but also because of strong gusts from storms in the west.

These links are strong. Demand from Europe and the United States each account for about a third of emerging Asia’s net exports. Foreign participation in local sovereign debt markets has nearly doubled over the past five years. Again, we see this here in Malaysia, where foreigners now hold almost 30 percent of government bonds. So from all sides, Asia is exposed to sudden shifts in sentiment.

Going forward, we believe that growth will pick up again, and that Asia will retain its position as a growth leader—expanding 2 percentage points faster than the world average next year.

But none of this can be taken for granted. It depends on the actions of global policymakers, especially in the United States and Europe. And “action” is the operative word.

Here, I believe the west can learn from Asia’s own brush with crisis in the 1990s. In the wake of that crisis, Asia came through strong and resilient, on the back of sound macroeconomic and structural policies. Asians did not draw the wrong lesson from the crisis—they did not hunker down, pull up drawbridges, or withdraw from the world. Quite the contrary.

Look at the recent record. Both public and private sector finances have been managed well. Since the Asian crisis, corporate debt-equity ratios fell by two-thirds. Financial leverage and reliance on foreign funding are also lower. The ratio of short-term foreign debt to official reserves—a key indicator of external vulnerability—fell by a third or more.

In short, Asia’s economic foundations became safer, sounder, and more resilient—but still open to the world and open for business. This has important lessons for the advanced economies currently facing severe challenges.

Given their importance, let me talk a bit about the United States and Europe, which have a special responsibility to act.

Of immediate concern, American policymakers must avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” at all costs. If expiring tax provisions and spending cuts were indeed to come into play, growth in the United States would fall to zero or below—and the rest of the world will not be immune. This policy uncertainty must be resolved, and it will require all sides coming together.

The Eurozone, which is still facing crisis, must also deliver on its policy commitments at the national and regional level—fiscal, financial, structural. And again, all players must play their part.

So Europe must forge ahead with greater economic cooperation—especially through deeper fiscal and financial integration. A major priority for the Eurozone is a true banking union to complement its monetary union. As a first step, this means a single supervisory framework; and ultimately, there also needs to be a pan-European deposit guarantee scheme and a bank resolution mechanism with common backstops.

This kind of integration will protect the stability of the region as a whole. By coming closer together, Europe helps itself—and it also helps the entire global economy.

2. Increased Economic Cooperation within Asia

This brings me to my second area this evening—the virtues of further economic cooperation within Asia.

Just as in Europe, our interconnected world calls for new approaches in this region too. As the young Malaysian novelist Tan Twan Eng put it, “Moments in time when the world is changing bring out the best and the worst in people”. May we always choose the best!

Let me be clear on this point: I am not talking about political integration or the kinds of monetary union we see in Europe and in various other parts of the world. Rather, I am talking about the broader promise of economic cooperation in two areas in particular—trade and finance.

Trade integration

In terms of trade integration, Asia has already made great strides. Over the past decade, trade within Asia tripled, and regional trade among emerging Asia grew even faster.

With Asian trade, many tributaries flow together as a single great river. A typical pattern is that Asian economies send intermediate goods to China, which assembles them into final goods for exports. In fact, intermediate goods now account for over 70 percent of all Asian exports.

Malaysia is part of this flow—especially through exporting valuable electronic goods up the chain. Malaysia’s intermediate exports to China have increased fourfold since the mid-1990s. This “relay race” along the supply chain has served Malaysia and the region extremely well, making sure that common rewards flow to common efforts.

But this flow is never static. We know that China’s role is changing fast. Its current account surplus has already fallen from a peak of 10 percent to 3 percent of GDP. This is mainly driven by investment so far, but we expect a shift to consumption. This is the next big phase, and I believe that the ASEAN countries are well placed to benefit from this large and enticing market.

ASEAN countries themselves, of course, will also need to support domestic consumption. After all, the shift toward high-income status can only come through a strong middle class. And again, further regional integration can help with this, by offering new avenues for mutual gain.

Looking ahead, the formation of the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015 offers the vast possibilities of a common market. The Trans-Pacific Partnership can also deliver great benefits, especially by emphasizing service markets—a sector that has been too protected for too long.

There is no question about it: looking ahead, Asia can benefit from opening even more doors to trade.

Financial integration

What about financial integration? Here, there is even more scope for progress because financial integration is currently lagging behind trade integration. More than 90 percent of ASEAN cross-border portfolio investment flows are with advanced economies outside Asia. Asia—with its current account surpluses—is simply not investing enough of its savings in itself.

Certainly, we do see FDI flows within the region. Malaysia, for instance, is a big direct investor in Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Greater regional financial integration could open up a host of new benefits. It can boost domestic demand—partly by making it easier for small businesses in countries like Malaysia to gain access to credit. It can make economies safer, by allowing more insurance against volatility and adverse developments. And one other important benefit: greater access to financial services by the poor can reduce inequality.

On a practical level, financial integration is eased by making local banking systems more open and competitive. The integration of ASEAN stock markets would help, as would a larger regional bond market, as envisaged by the Asian Bond Market Initiative.

With its Economic Transformation Program, Malaysia is helping to lead the way and is ready to take the next step—boosting productivity and growth to become a vibrant, high-income, country by 2020. This is more than aspiration—it is based on firm policy intention.

To support this transition, Bank Negara Malaysia has designed a financial sector blueprint that seeks a world-class financial system worthy of a high-income country. I believe that it can be done.

Indeed, Malaysia already has a history of innovative finance. It has become a world leader in sukuk, or shari’ah-compliant bonds—accounting for two-thirds of the sukuk market. Malaysia saw an opening and took it. I expect the future to be no different.

Further economic cooperation—despite the very different span of countries, cultures, and systems across Asia—is a big part of that future.

Making integration work

We should all recognize that integration does not come without costs. More financially-integrated economies are more exposed to storms. In particular, while capital flows can bring great benefits, they can also overwhelm countries with damaging cycles of crescendos and crashes.

At the same time, deeper financial market development allows an economy to put down strong roots and weather storms well. You know this here in Malaysia. Governor Zeti has pointed out that a mature financial system can handle capital flows without being overwhelmed. And it is testament to her superior economic management that Malaysia is well protected.

Economic management is the key. If the flows are coming through the banking system, then macroprudential tools make sense—such as tightening conditions for housing loans or having banks hold more capital. In other circumstances, temporary capital controls might prove useful. I should point out that Malaysia was ahead of the curve in this area.

Making the most of financial integration also means better regulation. Here, I am thinking of global rules like the Basel III reforms. I am also thinking of local rules, like stronger and more harmonized regulatory frameworks, including in the area of cross-border supervision.

Asia has a unique opportunity to get financial integration right—avoiding the missteps and excesses of the west.

One more point: in a more integrated world, it is sometimes too easy for people to get lost or forgotten. In such a world, it becomes even more important to make sure that growth benefits everybody and that vulnerable people are protected—and included.

Asia has some room for improvement here. Despite the tremendous fall in poverty over the past few decades, income inequality is on the rise. Even Malaysia, which made great strides in reducing inequality in the 1970s and 1980s, has not seen further reductions since then.

Making growth more inclusive means moving on many fronts:

There is room to spend more on healthcare and education, which are at relatively low levels in Asia.

There is room to cover more people under pension and unemployment insurance schemes—only 20 percent of the working-age population is covered in emerging Asia, as opposed to 60 percent in the OECD.

There is room to raise minimum wages for the poor, which are relatively low in Asia—and I understand that Malaysia has recently introduced a minimum wage policy.

And there is room to improve access to financial markets—right now, nearly 60 percent of the people in East Asia are excluded from the formal financial system.

I know that Malaysia is working hard on this important agenda, and I can see the progress that is being made. Now is the time to push even further.

3. International policy cooperation

So far, I have talked about the policy actions needed from the advanced economies and implications for Asia. I have talked about increased economic integration within Asia. Let me now turn to my third point—the importance of international policy cooperation.

As Tunku Abdul Rahman—Malaysia’s father of independence—put it, “Our future depends on how well many different kinds of people can live and work together”.

Asia understands this well. Countries cooperate and collaborate with each other at the regional level, at the global level, and through the IMF.

Starting with the regional level, the Chiang Mai Initiative Multileralization is a good example of the ASEAN countries’ commitment to deeper cooperation. I am also greatly encouraged by the emergence of the ASEAN+3 Macroeconomic Research Office (AMRO), which has begun to provide independent regional surveillance—gently nudging countries to act in concord with each other.

At the global level, Asia has a major and highly-respected voice in global economic governance, including through the G20 where it has six members.

Asia also plays an increasingly important role in the IMF. When our current round of governance reforms is completed, we will see a shift in quotas—countries’ shares in the Fund—of 9 percent since 2006 to the dynamic emerging markets and developing countries. China, India, and Japan will all be among our top ten shareholders.

Let me also mention that within the top management of the IMF, two Deputy Managing Directors—Naoyuki Shinohara and Min Zhu—are from Asia; as is Anoop Singh, our Director of the Asia-Pacific Department.

As we face an increasingly complex and interconnected world, we understand that the IMF needs to change and modernize—and we are doing so. We have certainly learned some lessons since the Asian crisis.

Let me give you a few examples of how we are trying to be even more effective in serving our global membership:

We are deepening our analysis of the dense patchwork of interconnections that crisscrosses the entire global economy and focusing more on economic and policy spillovers.

We are more flexible across a number of dimensions, including the time horizon for fiscal adjustment and policy responses for dealing with surges in capital flows.

We put more emphasis on protecting social safety nets and sharing the burden of adjustment fairly.

Of course, to support our global membership properly, we must also have the necessary resources. This year, the membership came together to boost our firepower by $461 billion—bringing our total lending power to over $1 trillion. Our membership also came together to ensure that we have enough concessional lending for the IMF’s poorer member countries in the years to come.

Why is this important? First, because it is a vote of confidence in the Fund. More than that, it is a vote of confidence in partnership, in solidarity, in the idea that by helping others, you are also helping yourself.

I am very appreciative that Asia—including Malaysia—played such a leading role in building that financial firewall.

At the end of the day, with its 188 member countries, the IMF is the premier forum for economic cooperation in the world today. It is the leading way for countries to stand together in normal times and help each other in tough times.

You could say that cooperation is in our lifeblood. We believe in cooperation and we want to help our members gain from cooperation.

We are at your service.

Conclusion

Let me conclude. I could not help but notice that Malaysia is using an eye-catching phrase to help brand its many advantages to the world: “Malaysia, Truly Asia”. This contains a wealth of wisdom. It suggests that Malaysia is poised to contribute to and share even more in the great promise of Asia.

Malaysia can do that by further embracing its neighbors, by further embracing the world—and in turn, by fully embracing its destiny.

That destiny lies within the common Asian destiny—to provide strength and leadership to the global economy of the 21st century, through cooperation and in partnership.

In another time, the Indian poet Tagore talked about the “opening of a new chapter in history” after a period of turmoil. “Perhaps that dawn will come from this horizon, from the East where the sun rises” he said.

This sentiment still holds true today. This is why I am back in Asia, and why I will keep coming back to Asia.

Thank you—terima kasih!

For all intent and puposes, it is abundantly clear that the overall positive assessment of the economic administration of the country, coming from the highly influential financial body, is testimony that the government's policies are carefully formulated, in line to address and meet local essential needs with international norms, crucial in the current global climate of difficult times.

Now, in the extreme politicking on both sides of the political divide prevalent in the country, nothing is sacred, be it racial or religious, it's also the economy that is an issue played up for both side's advantage.

But there was no political innuendos nor hidden messages coming from Madam Christine Legarde.

To even suggest as much would be inane, disingenuous and not be compatible to her credentials.

Madam Christine Legarde's appointment as IMF head was hailed in Europe, and supported by the US, Russia and China.

Reference to alternative online news reports, at the start above is not happenstance.

As mentioned, issues such as race, religion and the economy are decisive issues determining the outcome of the next general elections. Rightly or wrongly, the mainstream news media takes every opportunity to be favorable to government and critical of the opposition while the alternative online news content are conversely known to be more critical of the government and supportive, putting it mildly, towards the opposition.

It is no happenstance, however, that the alternative online could not find and fault Madam Legarde for an undeniable praiseworthy assessment of the country.

Perusing contents of IMF release, it is not only an endorsement of the economic policies of the present administration under prime minister and finance minister, Datuk Seri Najib, it is also a vindication of the policies the previous administration under Tun Mahathir to overcome the Asian financial crisis.

Madam Legarde not only has positive outlook for Malaysian economic policies of the past and present but also more importantly, the future.

This fact could not and must not have been lost by the alternative news medium or more politically correct, it's owners.

That said, looking at what was reported online alternatively as against, and more significantly, what are the actual salient points of that short but concise IMF communication from Madam Legarde (and The Edge Interview) that should be noted, as far as Malaysia is concerned?

The Malaysia Insider, while quoting that Edge interview with Madam Legarde, highlighted "Malaysia needs to step up tax and subsidy reforms" as it's headline could not shed it's opposition proclivity spots to add,

Malaysia’s finances are regarded as among the weakest in Asia due to its high debt-to-revenue ratio and reliance on petroleum to finance its budget.

What was actually reported by The Edge to a question posed to Madam Legarde, her reply not reported by the Malaysia Insider (click on screenshot), "The Economic Transformation Programme is at the core of these reforms, and it could be a catalyst for the investment take­off that is envisioned. Malaysia’s strong financial sector, its sound supervision and regulation" and "its global leadership in Islamic finance are all added advantages and All of these reforms are achievable and could help spur Malaysia’s continued success."

That reply further acknowledges a sound government policy and almost certainly repudiates the TMI remark as nothing more than a misguided notion.

"She said although Malaysia has come a long way in bridging the divide since the 1970s and 1980s, more can be done, as there has not been further reduction since then. The country can spend more on healthcare and education, as well as in pension and unemployment insurance schemes to help close the widening income gap"

In the context of the IMF release above, Madam Legarde was making the view of inequality in reference to Asia and not "the country"

However, what is correctly referenced to the country, in the same context, is "Even Malaysia, which made great strides in reducing inequality in the 1970s and 1980s, has not seen further reductions since then."

The ironical connections, other than an IMF chief acknowledging as appropriate Malaysia's remedy in the Asian financial crisis in a country that rejected the IMF approach, is the inequality finding, "Malaysia, which made great strides in reducing inequality in the 1970s and 1980s, has not seen further reductions since then".

One would not be too hard-pressed to make an observation which finance minister it was that advocated IMF remedies at the advent of the Asian financial crisis and who was the finance minister after the 1980's in the early and late 1990's.

But the IMF chief did note "Malaysia is working hard on this important agenda, and I can see the progress that is being made".

Putting aside the online alternative news media reports, other salient points that can be gathered from the IMF managing director is summarised thus:

"Malaysia is one of Asia’s most dynamic and innovative centers—with eyes fixed firmly on the future."

"Malaysia is a big direct investor in Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam."

Malaysia's "Economic Transformation Program, Malaysia is helping to lead the way and is ready to take the next step—boosting productivity and growth to become a vibrant, high-income, country by 2020."

"Malaysia already has a history of innovative finance"

"Deeper financial market development allows an economy to put down strong roots and weather storms" and in this respect "Malaysia is well protected."

"Economic management is the key" and "Malaysia was (sic) ahead of the curve in this area."

And from the Madam Legarde's interview with The Edge, "I am impressed with Malaysia’s growth record since independence. In a little over half a century, the country has been lifted into the ranks of the most successful emerging market countries. The transformation has been marked by strong foreign investment, proactive government policies and high levels of savings."

Well, we have had only one same government since independence, the Parti Perikatan which is now the Barisan Nasional.

Therefore and to be respected as a credible, responsible and impartial online news medium, The Malaysian Insider should forthwith officially announce, in what would be a groundbreaking policy not seen anywhere else in the world, with immediate effect all future headlines of any individual, irregardless of race, religion or political affiliation, will hereby state the person's past conviction of any crime.

As a gesture of it's sincerity, The Malaysia Insider can re-publish their report with an amended headline in line with this new policy thus, "Convicted ex-UMNO Deputy President Anwar says ‘Malaysian Spring’ in progress"

Sunday, November 11, 2012

The latest "hot" item in cyberspace particularly social networks like twitter and facebook seems to be buzzing about Ahmad Abd Jalil.

Ahmad Abd Jalil who?

Maybe it's me but I did not pay very much attention and had read only in passing of The Malaysia Insider report "Arrested youth’s family fear Johor palace interference, urge cops to help" because the first few lines and headline itself sounded ludicrous.

Yes, it would have been believable in days of yore and those of my generation may well concur.

Not in recent and present times.

It cannot be denied that PDRM has the greatest of respect for all Sultans in every sultanate state and so it should be. But to allege that the palace would interfere in police investigations, even if it is out of fear or concern, cannot be given credit.

Since the constitutional crisis which led to trimming powers of the Sultans, especially immunity to criminal acts, by act of parliament, there has never been any occasion to support such an allegation.

The speed and momentum in to rally and support Ahmad via social networks and blogs is also another reason. Any "abuse" by our monarchs (or anyone else) nowadays will not escape the public domain through these very same avenues.

Yet who exactly is Ahmad Abd Jalil?

Ahmad is reported to be a quantity surveyor whose facebook posting are alleged to have insulted HRH the Sultan of Johore. He was investigated for seditious content and charged under Section 233 (1)(b) of the Communications and Multimedia Act.

The blogosphere with one such as this has made Ahmad some sort of innocent victim of circumstances and as mentioned people have even rallied with a vigil to protest his detention and charge.

Searching for the actual offending FB posting proved elusive but according to this report the posting certainly is very offensive even to be quoted. Also, it certainly is a case where EA 114A is appropriate in it's application as a deterent to prevent anonymous postings that are slanderous, seditious etc.

The report has the sister of Ahmad saying there is no evidence linking her accused brother to the posts in question which according to her were made by someone using the name "Zul Yahaya" but NST reports that Ahmad Abd Jalil from Klang, Selangor, was alleged to have used the pseudonym "Zul Yahya" and posted remarks that had embarrassed the ruler on two occasions.

As earlier said, accused Ahmad Abd Jalil is being made out to be a victim in this sordid affair.

But is he really as innocent as he is is being portrayed to be?

He is reported to be a quantity surveyor. It is not as though he is some juvenile deliquent and ignorant of the law.

And even if he were ignorant, by law ignorance cannot be a defence reported in London just about a week ago for a related offence, highly relevant to the present case, and any violation of the law, ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

That case in London is an essential read and an excellent lesson for all of us engaged in any form of online activity.

All said said and done, every due process of the law must be accorded to the accused and in a just manner, ignorance or not.

Now, let this be absolutely clear, as crystal as the opening lines by that widely acknowledged opposition leaning Malaysiakini report - "People should not be compelled to adopt a particular religion and this should also apply to Malays, says Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar."

Nurul Izzah's blunder, reasons for which I will explain, opened the floodgates for the main stream print media to make reports, critical of the MP for Lembah Pantai's stand.

On what grounds and basis the legal action is pursued will no doubt be anticipated for more than obvious reasons.

That said, Malaysiakini has seen fit to publish the "Transcript of Nurul Izzah's Q&A at forum" not once but three times. Here, here, and here.

A Cryptic message or glitch perhaps.

But seriously, I opine it as Malaysiakini saying they stand by their report.

Digressing, on the subject of standing by one's action, Malaysiakini is being probed for publishing a letter by Steve Oh entitled "Nurul's watershed idea for the nation" for alleged sedition. Malaysiakini also published a response by Mr Oh "I stand by my views, says letter writer". While it did not occur to me that the article could be considered seditious (obviously someone did), I did find the article racist and bigoted. I concluded thus and in hindsight should have published my views of that letter. I will, however say it here - it is racist and bigoted and therefore the author is a racist and a bigot. Despite anything Mr Oh wants to say of himself in his reply letter and also as Mr Oh says, I too am a nobody and freely under no protest whatsoever provide my email freddiedesouza@gmail.com (or thru my blog) to furnish my other contact details for him to sue me.

Coming back to Nurul Izzah, those loose lips at the forum was taken seriously enough to earn a a right royal rebuke from HRH the Sultan of Selangor.

Reality check

The problem with liberal thinking civil society represented by various NGOs, in general, and individuals, in particular, is their difficulty or their refusal to accept realities.

The difficulty or the refusal to accept the realities is more pronounced among the anti-government and pro-opposition supporters.

The reality is, the Malays are the dominant race in Malaysia. The reality is, the Malays are adherents of Islam, the official religion of the country.

When this realities, which are also undisputed facts, are accepted (or even if at the very least, considered), complexities when addressing contentious religious issues and discourse become less complicated.

Freedom of religion

To the thousands of opposition and anti-government supporters including the opposition leaning NGOs, for the subject a hand, who consider the United States the greatest democracy in the world, I will pose this question, is there true religious freedom in the land of free and brave?

I always say I cannot speak for other Christians.

I speak as a Catholic and also ask of my Catholic community the same question.

An important info first. Barack Obama has won the US presidential elections a comfortable margin in electoral votes but by a very slim margin in the popular vote.

Before our very eyes, President Obama is on the verge of establishing the principle that the right to religious freedom comes not from our Creator, but from those who rule us. A government endowed right granted to women now trumps our unalienable right to act in accordance with our religious beliefs and conscience. Not only does this overturn the First Amendment, it also tramples the nation’s founding principles as announced in the Declaration of Independence. Such an achievement would be the true audacity of power.

The fundamental question is whether the Catholic Church, and by extension, individual Americans have to engage in activities according to the rulings of this and future Presidents, or are we free to live our lives as we choose as long as we do not harm another. Are we free to engage in long standing religious practices that have never before been deemed unlawful, or has the federal government established a de facto state “religion” that it is prepared to enforce through the full coercive power of its financial resources and the imposition of financial penalties.

However, the Catholic Church can turn the tables on the President by taking Option A off the table with a humble statement of principal that in the matters of religious practices and conscience, there is a higher authority than government Who it chooses to obey. If President Obama prevails and unleashes the full force of the federal government against the Church, the cost will be the closing of Catholic schools, hospitals and the loss of social services that play a vital part in communities across the nation. Such a stand would make clear to the American people that the alternative to religious freedom would be a mortal wound to our civil liberties and a complete disruption of civil society.

I am not a Catholic, nor do I believe in the Church’s opposition to contraception. But I pray that the leadership of the Catholic Church will have the faith and courage to stand for its core beliefs and use all of its moral power and political influence to defeat the President’s edict. I pray they will reach out across the political spectrum to people of all faiths, agnostics and atheists in the name of religious freedom and individual liberty. By so doing, they, and the institution of the Catholic Church, will have my love and respect for the rest of my life.

In her reply to Question 1: It's heartening to know that you just cannot coerce someone into believing your beliefs, right? On any matter.

Now, I do want to ask a very controversial question, so what then the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community) here or the sexual minority here?

I'd like your views on that because there are people who feel that just by being able to love the same sex goes against their religion or beliefs, but we don't believe that.

Our own beliefs are such that we are answerable to God, yes, but let us be answerable to God. Thanks.

Nurul Izzah said "Okay, so the first question. In terms of the sexual rights of LGBT, Tariq Ramadan addressed this question when IRF organised his programme, I think about three months back and I think, of course, you're not just talking about Islam.

There are limitations and you know, implemented in Christianity with regards to people of - you know - LGBT, but one thing is important is you should not victimise anyone.

You should not also implement and you know, ensure the laws of the land encroach into private... uh.. into public space.

I think that is the main underlying principle. But if you ask me whether, as a Muslim, I can accept, I think yes, you or whoever that, besides their particular sexual orientation.

Yes, in private you cannot enforce them certain regulation, etcetera. But as a Muslim, I also cannot accept and that is regulation of my faith and as well as my friends who are Catholic, etcetera.

I think here you want to make sure that they are not victimised, the current practise, whether how, through the Borders (bookstore) ... sort of, err, how Jawi or Jakim at that time went to the Borders, some books etcetera, so the way it is practised does not respect and does not give any meaning for the sanctity of Islam, or any religion for that matter.

You must always use hikmah, so yes, I will say here, we have limitation, but certainly it should not be encroached into public space."

In her reply to Question 2: I'm very happy to hear YB Nurul speak about freedom of religion. Does she actually apply that to Malays as well in terms of freedom of religion? That is number one.

Number two, I think it is a fallacy to believe that Egypt now is (in) a better condition than it was before. Everybody knows that it is getting worse.

I have a friend in Egypt and she is really not happy about what is going on over there, so I do believe YB is trying to promote the idea of an Islamic state, like you know this which is completely not true.

But mainly my question is, when you speak of freedom of religion, are you actually applying to the Malays as well? Thanks.

Nurul Izzah said "The second question with regards (to) what you think I'm trying to promote, I would correct that assumption. Yes, Egypt is undergoing a tumultuous process. It has not been resolved, there are many challenges they face.

I am not saying they have achieved a Utopian ideal view of a state and how it should be governed but I always take the development of the Muslim Brotherhood, in particular, from seen as a rather dogmatic Islamic movement come up with a political entity to meet the needs of the time and their relationship and collaboration with the Christian Coptic is something in particular that we have to observe and appreciate.

So if you say things are bad for Egypt, no. You, and we, must not be so judgmental and that is partly the society or the country that we have inherited that allows us to see things in black and white, whereas sometimes it is not as simple as that.

Sometimes in a stormy period, it is important for them to undergo and hopefully, because we wish for the best. We wish that they will have wisdom and finally manage the governance of the country itself.

Yes, umm, but the idea itself, I think, goes back. And when you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion, even Dr (Ahmad) Farouk (Musa) quoted that verse in the Quran.

How can you ask me or anyone, how can anyone really say, 'Sorry, this only apply to non-Malays.' It has to apply equally."

So, when ex-Mufti of Perlis added the first-term federal lawmaker had contacted him to help explain to the public her statement and that he agreed with her remarks that there was no compulsion in Islam, it's anyone's guess what Nurul Izzah actually said.

It's also anyone's guess why Nurul should contact Datuk Mohd Asri in the first place.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

The government was willing to meet and discuss the Indian community's grouses with all Indian groups, including the banned Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).

When anyone is prepared to have a dialog, one must take the offer without any preconceived ideas.

Let's agree that it is due to the impending general elections.

Is it not then opportune to deliver the communities grievance, in this case the Indian community, with a resolute view to address the issues with a view to resolve them?

But even before proposed meeting, when all or any group are agreeable to such a meet, could be officially announced, Human Rights Party leader P Uthayakumar wants Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to implement five specific demands by 1 Jan 2013, reports Malaysiakini.

And those demand must be met even before he decides to meet!

Fair enough.

Even if one were to demand, the demand should be reasonable and could possibly be met.

Look at what is demanded:

•All 523 Tamil schools nationwide be made fully-aided government schools and land titles must to be issued to the schools by Jan 1, 2013. In addition, kindergartens are also to be set up in the schools, as most of the Indian children are illiterate as a result of their parents not being able to send them for early education.

•There are 150,000 stateless Indian children who do not have their birth certificates, and an estimated 300,000 parents who do not have identity cards and birth certificates and therefore, stateless. Hindraf wants these groups to be issued their birth certificate and MyKad.

•10,000 places to be set aside for Indians in Giatmara (government-run youth centres), for the youth in the community to acquire skills.

•10,000 places to be set aside for Indians in Universiti Teknologi Mara.

•10,000 Indians to be granted land in various federal land schemes such as Felda, Felcra, and Risda to give them an opportunity to earn a living.

Can the above demands be granted in less than two months?

This clearly shows that Mr Uthayakumar of the Human Rights Party by being impossible in his demands, is not interested to any approach by the government and has no sincere intention to have the welfare of the Indian community looked into to resovle issues affecting the community.

Do you seriously and sincerely think these five demands could be met in the frame of time that you have set if the Pakatan Rakyat were the ruling coalition?

The government has made an offer in good faith.

Mr Uthayakumar has spurned a gesture for his own selfish political purpose, a gesture by the government in my humble opinion, that would have been unthinkable if Samy Vellu were still president of MIC.

In other words the YB is reporting to JAIS that her statements were distorted.

Her crooked back papa, Anwar Ibrahim, says his daughter's statement were manipulated.

The second FMT report, "I am disappointed with Nurul" quotes the person who actually posed the question that has got the YB in all sorts of tangles. Quote,

A lawyer who posed the question on religious freedom to PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar during a forum last Saturday is disappointed with the politicians 180 degree turn.

Siti Kasim, a member of the Bar Council human rights committee, said she was disappointed that Nurul had “retracted” her remark.

“I believe Nurul was just trying to impress the people, she didn’t think of the consequences,” she told FMT.

Siti said Nurul should have stood firm on her remark that freedom of religion was a right for all including the Malay-Muslim.

So how lah now Nurul? Sigh!

There is more.

The human rights and bar council member, Siti Kasim, is also reported as saying,

while Nurul did not mention about apostasy in her response, the latter however was a clear supporter of freedom of religion for the Malays.

In the following days she ‘retracted’ her remark, and said she did not support apostasy. But indirectly when you say you support freedom of religion, and if Malay wants to get out from Islam, that’s apostasy"

Sue the bar council member as well! Sigh!

But there is more. FMT also reported Siti Kasim thus,

The Orang Asli rights advocate said she once posed the same question to Nurul’s father, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, but failed to get a direct response.

“He was going around the bush and didn’t answer directly. We want politicians to be straight forward”

That is expected of the crooked fellow. No sighs here.

I see the situation of the YB for Lembah Pantai as the proverbial sacrificial lamb for the slaughter, for whatever expedient advantage that is likely or hoped to be achieved.

Or it is directly a result of her own political naivety.

Nurul Izzah is a small fish in a big pond only because papa, Anwar Ibrahim, the big fish put her there.

Question 2: But mainly my question is, when you speak of freedom of religion, are you actually applying to the Malays as well? Thanks.

Nurul Izzah: Yes, umm, but the idea itself, I think, goes back. And when you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion, even Dr (Ahmad) Farouk (Musa) quoted that verse in the Quran. How can you ask me or anyone, how can anyone really say, 'Sorry, this only apply to non-Malays.' It has to apply equally... apply equally.

In my updated post yesterday "When Nurul Izzah Gets Caught With Her Hands Down" I said that Nurul Izzah must first apologise to HRH Sultan Selangor for any offence she may have caused to His Majesty and Nurul Izzah should be the one to explain to His Majesty.

Why should PAS be the party to exlain Nurul's remarks when PAS are not directly involved in the matter?

PAS is not involved directly or indirectly.

Also, should it not be the Selangor Mentri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, the more appropriate person to explain to HRH Sultan Selangor?

After all, not only is Tan Sri the Mentri Besar of Selangor, he is from Nurul's party PKR and, and also in charge of the Islamic affairs portfolio.

"I am close enough with the Sultan...I can bring the actual statement to the Sultan," Dr Dzulkefly, who is also the Kuala Selangor MP said during a press conference in Parliament today.

Does this mean Tan Sri Khalid is not close to HRH the Sultan of Selangor?

Surely not, right?

It would seem when Nurul Izzah got caught with her hands down, it opened up old wounds that the Pakatan Rakyat in Selangor is trying very hard to heal, other than making herself a zero rather than a hero.

Anyway, not everyone in and out of Pakatan Rakyat is going to let Nurul's issue PAS.

"When asked by his lawyer, D. Paramalingam, how the companies and individuals were related, Low said: "From what I know, they are all cronies of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim."

The report ended in a post script,

(At an earlier hearing, judicial commissioner Hadhariah Syed Ismail rejected a bid by Low to amend his statement of defence to include the involvement of Anwar as the person behind the RM445 million deal to acquire AMCB, which in turn owned Kewangan Bersatu Bhd (KBB), a financial institution at that time.)

The Court of Appeal here on Wednesday allowed an appeal brought by a businessman to amend his statement of defence to include the involvement of opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the person behind the RM445mil deal to acquire Arus Murni Corporation Bhd (AMCB), which was owned Kewangan Bersatu Bhd (KBB).

Justice Mohamed Apandi also ordered that a fresh trial be held before another judge. The panel also awarded Low, 55, RM10,000 in legal costs.

and

Low sought to include Anwar, who was the then finance minister and now opposition leader as he was the person behind the RM445mil deal to acquire Arus Murni Corporation Bhd, which in turn was owned Kewangan Bersatu Bhd, a financial institution at that time.

This is what uber opposition news portal Malaysiakini proudly reported, "Nurul: There should be no compulsion in choosing faith", that people should not be compelled to adopt a particular religion and this should also apply to Malays, says Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar,

"When you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion... how can anyone say sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays, it has to apply equally."

It is evidently clear that the opposition aligned alternative news portal had come to interpret, that Nurul advocates religious freedom with no compulsion for all including Malays the majority of whom are Muslims, is what she meant in form and substance.

"Nurul Izzah’s remark is expected to stir controversy as Malay Muslims in Malaysia are banned from converting out from Islam except under unique circumstances and discussion of the subject is seen as taboo."

Both alternative news media, Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today, could not have got it wrong.

Nurul Izzah's qualifying statements like "I am, of course, tied to the prevailing views" is dubitable, moot and cannot escape the culpability in the intent of her statements.

Nurul Izzah and father, Anwar Ibrahim, think that they are indispensable in Pakatan Rakyat and can get away with anything they say and do everywhere else with impunity.

Appointment with Tok Guru Nik Aziz perhaps but in the mean time, or maybe any time, don't hope to be invited to any PAS ceramah.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Why Hudud laws cannot be implemented is because it would be in conflict with Article 74 of the federal constitution, which empowers secular courts in (civil and) criminal matters as specified in List I - The Federal List (4) of the 9th Schedule.

States are empowered to pass laws, by virtue of Article 73, only in respect of Islamic civil laws limited to and as specified in List II - State List (1) of the 9th Schedule which does not have jurisdiction in respect of offences conferred by Federal Law, a restriction under Article 75.

It would be moot even if the federal constitution were to be amnended by a parliamentary 2/3 majority to allow Hudud laws as it would be in conflict with the Supreme Law of the Federation, Article 4 (1).

Who should know better than DAP stalwart and chairman, Karpal Singh.

But that did not stop the Kelantan and Terengganu state assemblies to enact and pass Hudud laws, in conravention of federal laws, when PAS ruled these states.

PAS, to enact and pass the Hudud laws, cannot be out of any political expediency because PAS were already in power in those two states, hence not a political stunt.

Surely, however, PAS knew the laws could not be enforced as/and they have not been enforced.

So, when PAS declares that they are committed to implement Hudud laws, although they know that it cannot be enforced, they are serious.

How can they not be serious, it is imbued by the PAS party constitution.

But when PAS makes this delaration, the Pakatan Rakyat as a coalition will conveniently say it is not part of their concensus and the issue of Hudud laws does not arise.

And since the issue does not arise, PAS continued delarations to implement Hudud laws and it's continued rejection by Pakatan Rakyat as a coalition, are therefore nothing more than political expediencies and a political ruse to maintain their supporter base.

"Lim said the enactment was drafted by the three component parties of Pakatan Rakyat and based on three important principles:
Sovereignty of the people under the parliamentary democratic system, with the people having the right to choose their representatives;
Freedom of association for the elected representative, but he or she should vacate the seat if party-hopping during the tenure; and
On the principle of accountability, elected representatives must be responsible to their voters."

Digressing, from the above, note the usual highfalutin but dubious manner in which the Pakatan Rakyat base the anti-hoping laws on principles. As is also usual, Pakatan Rakyat gets caught in it's own spin because "freedom of association for the elected representative" is a indeed a democratice priciple but qualified, to justify the anti-hopping law.

I may get flak from what I am about to say, it is typical of the Chinese psyche, do first because everything can kow tim later, when transgressing laws.

Coming back, while Hudud laws legislated in Kelatan and Terengganu has not been challenged in the courts of law, this is another case of enacting state laws that not only transgresses the federal constitution. Not only that but also enacting anti-hopping laws deemed illegal, unanimously decided by the then Supreme Court of five supreme court judges, Tun Abdul Hamid Omar, Tan Sri Harun Hashim, Tan Sri Mohamed Yusoff, Tan Sri Gunn Chit Tuan and Tan Sri Edgar Joseph Jr.

Who should know better than DAP legal eagle, Karpal Singh. Even though Karpal is very much against anti-hopping when he did not at any one time been in support of Anwar Ibrahim's stand on crossovers to take over the federal government.

In anti-hopping, therefore, Pakatan Rakyat concensus is rather mute and it dashes Anwar Ibrahim's hopes of Putrajaya should Barisan Nasional win the next GE by a wafer paper thin margin. You think?

So it seems, when DAP legislated anti-hopping laws, although they know that it cannot be enforced, they too are serious.

In the DAP case, however, since anti-hopping legislation is illegal as decided by the highest court in the country but the Penang state assembly still went ahead with such legislation, it can only mean that it is nothing more than a political expedient expedition of vote fishing to remain in power.

MyKad

Love my country with its pimples, warts and all - a paradise on earth. Born in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor. Blog, Title and Description was created a flip-flop moment in time and what others following will aspire the country to be, that which was achieved by the Special One.

DISCLAIMER

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog does not share the view of any comments unless otherwise stated. The owner is not responsible and makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any comments published or information found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. Reader discretion is always advised.